It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stratolaunch Monster to have Maiden Flight this summer

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Kind of an interesting landing. Official landing photo from Stratolaunch.





posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




That's what engineers are for.


I agree, on a more serious note how many miles to the gallon will she do?



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wonder if that will have caused any damage at all?!



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The 747, with four CF6s (same engines on this), burns around 5 gallons per mile.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Good question. I'm sure they're going to go over it with a fine toothed comb either way.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

pretty close to what an M-1 tank needs, iirc.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yeah, I always heard between 5 and 8, depending on speed.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A LOT more drag on this thing than a B747.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow I wouldn't have thought it was that efficient.

I was half joking with the question as I knew I'd probably get a quicker answer from the Board than googling.

Thank you.




pheonix358:: The stress on the centre section will be enormous especially when they load that centre point with a payload.


Question if you may know:

I've always been curious, didn't the Concorde fly in the Stratosphere?Now if I'm understanding the following correctly Delta wings designs are not for the stratosphere? And yet the shuttle rises above it.

www.aopa.org...

Wouldnt the 2 fuselage shape of the Stratosphere place enormous stresses on the Joining(?) wing? Especially if its piggybacking a space launcher?

Thank you for your thoughts



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
You can fly a swept wing at any height... if you go fast enough...



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Enough thrust and even bricks will fly.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

SR-71/A-12 family is essentially a modified delta. Goes pretty high... Goes pretty fast.

Concorde flew at ~50,000' ... Going pretty fast.

B747 typically flies under 42,000'... Doesn't go as fast.


An airplane needs X amount of lift to fly if it weighs X pounds.
X= L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Cl or coefficient of lift depends on the wing's sectional shape relevant to oncoming air
A is area
r is the air density (altitude, pressure, temperature related)
V^2 is the velocity of airflow squared

If we want to fly higher where air is thinner and r is decreased, then we need to change another variable to keep L the same. We can't change the wing shape and area (generally speaking), so you need to change the velocity.

The good news is thinner air is less drag... The bad news is your engines/propellers have less air to work with so unless you're using an engine designed for altitude work or a rocket that doesn't need much (or any) air for combustion, you cannot raise your velocity enough to make L=Weight. That's your effective ceiling where each plane tops out.
edit on 13-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I know, but it's the best comparison we're going to find.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLightI'm glad it worked for them. That is one big load of ugly.



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Every video of that plane flying by, what a beautiful sound! 6 seems to be the sweet spot for those engines! I'd imagine that's a pretty stout aircraft of they plan to lift with the center section. I don't get why everyone would worry about it's structural strength when it's design basis is to lift heavy loads.

Again, that sound!



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

Because a design like that has inherent weaknesses you don't see with a standard tube design. And when they were building it, it suffered damage.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Do you see it actually being worth its time being built or is it going to be one of this projects and dies fast?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I can see it having some use as a replacement for the Orbital L1011, but beyond that, not really. Without a dedicated rocket, it's going go carry a Pegasus. It's a stupidly large platform for that.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It gets a whole lot less efficient when you remember that it cruises at 580mph which means that at cruise speed the fuel burn is 2900 gallons/hour, or 19,430 pounds of jet A per hour.

For easy reference, that's roughly the equivalent of burning an entire 9,000 gallon tractor trailer tanker truck's worth of fuel every three hours, and a 6 hour flight from JFK to Heathrow burns two whole semi trailer tankers worth of fuel.

On the flip side, compared to how much kerosene a Falcon 9 burns, the 747 looks looks like a moped.
edit on 14-4-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

thanks




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join